Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Response to Google open letter

accc.gov.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 330 posts

Re: Response to Google open letter

#261

Post by dang »

vermilingua wrote: post #138
harryf wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In another section the draft legislation requires Facebook / Google to notify the news organisation of changes to their page rank / feed algorithm, and also provide advice on how to mitigate the effects of those changes. Interesting. On the one hand working in software the idea of having communicate changes to an algorithm like this to 3rd parties gives me nightmares, and opens the door to regulation of the algorit…

> On the other hand... why not? You must be unfamiliar with NewsCorp. This is the cesspool that spawned Fox News, Sky News, and The Sun. That hacked the phones of journalists, celebrities, and royalty just to get a scoop. That routinely and as a core function of business interferes in democratic process. That effectively pioneered fake news, and has singlehandedly destroyed the credibility of the entire media industr…

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Response to Google open letter

#262

Post by cookie_monsta »

extropy wrote: post #251
chris_wot wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given how badly Facebook and Twitter screwed up dealing with misinformation and hate speech, I would not in any way be unhappy if they did so.

What makes you think that the news companies will do a better job?

The content that they publish?

Re: Response to Google open letter

#263

Post by thaumasiotes »

burkaman wrote: post #243
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So can media organizations. They just can't pre-moderate the comments.

Where are you seeing a requirement to pre-moderate?

Perhaps that's what the draft legislation means by "remove or filter comments"?

Re: Response to Google open letter

#264

Post by graeme »

cblconfederate wrote: post #3

I feel like this time it's different , google (and big tech it represents) will get little sympathy on reddit and other watering holes. Even if the law seems restricting, it's Google who broke the social contract of the internet and turned from a benevolent rent-seeker to a feudal lord. (E.g. check this: https://www.google.com/search?q=money+for+nothing , google just pastes the lyrics and there is NO link to read the…

You linked to google. Should you pay them?

If you shouldn’t, why should google pay to link to news? Google news is not a profit center for google. They make money from ads.

The whole “pay us for sending us traffic” argument has the economics of the web completely backwards. Organizations try to get links, as it sends them traffic.

Should hacker news pay money to the sites it links to? Or do they benefit from being here?

Re: Response to Google open letter

#265

Post by thomasahle »

Spivak wrote: post #129
kevincox wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Google at least they have the option to opt-out. They can add a robots.txt file to prevent indexing. It isn't clear to me why special legislation is required to give the media companies bargaining power. They already have the power to say no if they don't think the arrangement is fair. (For facebook it is less clear, because you can't really force people to stop sharing your links)

Sorta kinda. You can completely opt-out of Google Search entirely but there's no way to opt-out of having your content excepted while also appearing in organic search results. I mean I would be pissed if I was a major news org that saw traffic drop off because Google is copy-pasting content from my site in their omnibox. This stuff is extremely good for the user and I rely on it a lot but they should have to license…

> there's no way to opt-out of having your content excepted

You mean the news carousel, or whatever it's called in the search results? Doesn't appearing in thst require you to add a lot of metadata to your page?

Re: Response to Google open letter

#266

Post by kdtsh »

intended wrote: post #159
kdtsh wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Google did not state this. The ACCC - the supposed detached "fair" regulator, in charge of creating this code, just made something up to suit their own ends. From Google's open letter: `A proposed law, the News Media Bargaining Code, would force us to provide you with a dramatically worse Google Search and YouTube, could lead to your data being handed over to big news businesses, and would put the free services you…

This is not implying a charge. It’s a positive adjective meant to fluff up/activate the positive association of using google when people read it. Saying “the top quality services” “world class services” would come across as tone deaf. Free here is not meant to be added as a veiled reference to negotiating items.

I don’t see how this is the case. What is being put at risk if not the price tag/lack thereof?

Re: Response to Google open letter

#268

Post by shakna »

RVuRnvbM2e wrote: post #72
shakna wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The news site giving Google the article. As much as I dislike AMP... Google aren't the ones creating the AMP page.

> While AMP itself isn't a ranking factor, speed is a ranking factor for Google Search. https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/about-amp It's pretty blatantly the case that AMP provides a SEO boost. What hosting service could possibly compete with the speed at which Google can retrieve content from their _own_ servers? That's the whole point of this legislation: to give news orgs means to stop Google from t…

> While AMP itself isn't a ranking factor, speed is a ranking factor for Google Search.

That seems to say that is isn't blatantly the case that AMP provides an SEO boost. But that speed does. And there are many CDNs that are on the same edge. AMP isn't about to beat Akamai, for example.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#269

Post by roenxi »

zokier wrote: post #190
roenxi wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weaselly words or otherwise, there is a big power imbalance here. The ACCC can ultimately make Google do what it wants and is backed by a government on this matter. Google has no control over the ACCC. The ACCC is being irresponsible not dealing with - in precise terms - what Google actually said. Anything less verges on bullying. This isn't a public shouting match between equals.

> The ACCC can ultimately make Google do what it wants and is backed by a government on this matter Not really. Google could just exit Australia. And who you think that would hurt more, Australia or Google?

I think very little of Google; I'd like to see them leave Australia. Australians, of which I am one, are fools to be supporting that sort of centralised data collection. Tear it up, burn it down and throw it out in my humble opinion. I'd rather have incompetents than Google.

"[W]ell they can leave" is true - but the idea that that is something they would 'choose' to do is in my view a philosophical canard. Google is going to make the best economic decision and in that sense they don't really have a choice to make. The ACCC/government is the one with a range of options where they can pick one. And they should be held to a higher standard than bullying companies.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#270

Post by jay_kyburz »

fungi wrote: post #57
jay_kyburz wrote: post #46

This whole thing is really weird. We're bending over backwards to try and accommodate Google being allowed to profit from other peoples content. How about we simply ban Google and Facebook from reproducing news on their own site? And if we are truly believe "A healthy news media sector is essential to a well-functioning democracy." we need to punish both Google and content creators for publishing things that are demo…

> How about we simply ban Google and Facebook from reproducing news on their own site? News Corp is and always has been free to not have its content on Google ( https://www.robotstxt.org/ ). But that's not what they want, they want a Money just for appearing in search results. Seems more like a rent seeking for News Corp. > We're bending over backwards to try and accommodate Google The funny/bizzare bit is we are ben…

I thought the problem was that people don't click through to the newspaper, that articles are read on Google and Facebook somewhere.

I agree that we should also not be writing laws that just protect large news organizations, we should write them to protect everybody.

Post reply on HN